Johnny Frank Garrett: Not The Last Word

Reader Anonymous left a comment on my post What's Up With Johnny Frank Garrett? He informs us that The Last Word is now available on Netflix for instant viewing. The Last Word is an award winning documentary about  the obviously wrongful execution of Johnny Frank Garrett.

The 90 minute documentary provides more detail than I provided in my post Actual Innocence: Johnny Frank Garrett and Bubbles the Clairvoyant. If you have a Netflix subscription, you should watch the documentary. I suggest you wait until you have time to be sad and discouraged.

Jeff Blackburn is a Director for The Innocence Project of Texas. He appears in the documentary. Repeatedly. I'd say he's a bit angry about this case. Here's what he had to say about then Governor Ann Richards.

She should have stopped this execution and commuted his sentence. She could do it. There's no question about that. The governor has that power. She was arguably one of the best governors if not the best governor the 20th century had ever produced, and the best she could do is go along with the mob. That tells you how far things have gone in Texas.

To understand Ann Richards you've got to understand that she was a great Texas politician. To be a great politician in Texas means you've got to be a lousy human being. You cannot be governor of the state of Texas and be anything other than rotten to the core.

Johnny Frank Garrett made me personally change my whole view of Ms. Richards, a view that I had fostered on me and nurtured in me since childhood. She did the wrong thing, and for the wrong reason. And she did it for the sake of what they call political effectiveness, which really means keeping your career intact.

It was wrong and lousy and it still is wrong and lousy.

That's a bit harsh, but Ann Richards did in fact allow Johnny Frank Garrett to be executed. Rick Perry did in fact allow Francis Elaine Newton and Cameron Todd Willingham to be executed. All three were almost certainly innocent. It was wrong and lousy that we killed them.

Those three people died in vain. We have not learned from the injustice we inflicted upon them, and injected into them. We are going to do it again.

We are going to do it again in twelve days.

I'll write of that case tomorrow, on the first day of the new year.

Johnny Frank Garrett: An Opposing View

Reader Steve left a note on my post regarding Johnny Frank Garrett. I repeat that comment here in its entirety.

I think the people that are so anti-death penalty get a little caught up in any alternative explanation for executed killers they can find. Not sure why my last post on this wasn't accepted but people who are trying to "prove" his "innocence" are intentionally leaving critical information out. Garrett was executed in Texas in 1992 for the rape and murder of a 79 year old nun, when he was 17. His defense brought in renowned forensic psychiatrist Dr. Dorothy Otnow Lewis to examine him. To his defense, she found him to have severe childhood trauma and significant brain damage. He also had multiple personalities, one of which ("Aaron") not only committed the rape and murder but described it to Dr. Lewis. This is why "Johnny" acted like he was innocent. He thought he was. All this stuff about a Cuban claiming the murder later have no support in facts. Why is there no mention of Otnow's book or position on this case here? Read Guilty By Reason of Insanity, 1998, Otnow-Lewis, Ivy Books, NY.

I begin my response by being a bit defensive. Steve suggested I rejected a previous comment: "Not sure why my last post on this wasnt accepted ..." Comments are posted automatically on this blog. They do not await my acceptance or rejection. I learn of them later via my gmail account. While I can delete any comment, I have yet to delete one. As far as I know, no comment from Steve or anybody else has been rejected or deleted.

I did earlier, however, receive an email from someone named Steve (who gave his full name) and I did respond. I treat emails as private correspondence and do not publish their content without permission. Since I assume Comment Steve and Email Steve are the same person, and since that person clearly wants his position made public, I reproduce his original email below, withholding only his last name and his email address.

Have you read "Guilty By Reason Of Insanity" by Dorothy Otnow-Lewis? Lewis interviewed Garrett extensively for the defense and found Garrett to have severe brain injuries and multiple personalities. She also personally interviewed Garrett and he, as another personality, admitted to killing and raping the nun. As "Johnny," he protested his innocence to the day of his execution, because he believed he didn't do it. In his mind, he didn't.

I am writing a second book about violent killers and I was using Garrett's case, when I noted people on the "Net proclaiming his innocence, who do not seem like the even know this.

Steve [last name withheld]

Steve apparently mistook me for someone "proclaiming" Garrett's innocence. I have yet to proclaim anyone executed by Texas to be innocent. I review some cases in considerable detail, and I attempt to apply a disciplined scoring system to assign a probability of actual innocence. I concede that I gave Garrett a score of 91, the highest I have given so far, but I did not proclaim him to be innocent. It's a quibble, but I use proclamations of innocence sparingly and I'm protective of them.

So I wrote back to Steve and challenged him to assign his own probability.

Steve,

Thanks for the tip. I've ordered the book from Amazon. I'll check it out and update as appropriate.

What probability do you give to his actual innocence or actual guilt?  Just curious.

Regards,

John

Steve wrote back but declined to assign a probability.

Hi John

I'll give you some background. I wrote The Psychopathology of Serial Murder: A Theory of Violence, in 1996. I teach Psychology of the Offender for the University of Illinois at Springfield.  I am writing a new book based on the old one, updated for 2011. While researching some of Dr. Otnow Lewis's work, I included the Garrett case because of his severe brain injuries, neurological issues and abuse. He also seems to be an interesting case of multiple personality (Dissociative Identity Disorder).

Full disclaimer: I tend to lean towards the prosecution side of things, but I try to keep an open mind because I don't want to look foolish and the prosecution does that enough as it is. I like Lewis's work because of her brain injury analysis with Dr Pincus, but I always have a problem with her because she finds these issues to be exculpatory and she always works for the defense to say so.

Lewis worked for the defense on this case, and worked up all his history as a mitigating defense for his actions. Her interview of Garrett, especially when Garrett was acting as "Aaron" where he admits to the rape because "Johnny needed it" is more than enough for me to believe Garrett's guilt. Lewis had a point here ... executing Garrett giving his age and his mental incapacity was ludicrous (and I do support the death penalty), but I do not believe that Garrett didn't do it. Neither does Dr. Lewis.

The Cuban confession story seems very unsupported and unbelievable to me.

That's my take-
Steve [last name withheld]

I realize that anyone can probably now track down Steve's last name based on the title of his book, and I'm guessing he wouldn't mind if you did. Nonetheless, I elect not to make it public here.

Steve apparently is convinced of Garrett's guilt because Aaron, one of Garrett's "multiples", confessed to raping and murdering Sister Tadea Benz. I quote from Steve's comment which I included at the beginning of this post. "He also had multiple personalities, one of which ("Aaron") not only committed the rape and murder but described it to Dr. Lewis."

So I obtained a copy of Dr. Otnow Lewis' book. Now I have another quibble with Steve. Aaron did not say he killed Sister Benz. He adamantly and persistently denied it. I quote from the author's interview with Garrett, then acting or believing himself to be Aaron. Aaron speaks first, author responds.

"When he got into her room, he blacked out. I took over, I put my hand over her mouth so she wouldn't scream. I raped her."

"You raped her? Why?"

"Johnny needed it."

Alternates have a marvelous way of recounting the most bizarre, the most grotesque acts, as though they were describing the facts of life. Johnny needed sex: Aaron raped a nun. It was as simple as that. Sometimes Aaron shoved a bottle in Johnny's behind. Other times he found Johnny a woman.

"I know Johnny better than Johnny does. He had an erection. I knew what he wanted. But he wouldn't be able to do it. I put him to sleep. I took over."

"Who killed her?"

Again Aaron's eyes widened and fixed me with a wild, untamed look. He was afraid. He fell silent. The powerful Aaron Shockman was frightened. I thought, maybe Aaron is not as powerful as Johnny thinks. Aaron remained silent, listening, anxious.

"What's happening?" I waited. "Is someone talking to you?" Still no answer. "Is someone stopping you?" The silence continued as Aaron remained wide-eyed, in a trance.

Since that day I have seen this phenomenon many times. I have thought that I was speaking with someones most violent protector alter, only to discover weeks, even months later, the existence of a more powerful alter and dangerous personality.

"Aaron, if you didn't kill her, who did?"

"I don't know," came the reply. I could tell he was lying. "When I got off her she wasn't dead. It all happened on the bed. When I left, she was on the bed."

"But Aaron," I interrupted. "They said they found her on the floor. What happened?"

"I don't know. All I do know is that I did not kill her. Johnny did not kill her. I did not kill her."

Steve has built himself a house of cards on a shaking foundation in a seismic zone. Steve believes Garrett murdered Sister Benz because he (Steve) disbelieves what Johnny says but he (Steve) does believe what Aaron says. However, Steve doesn't really believe what Aaron says because Aaron said he didn't murder Sister Benz. Steve chooses to believe Aaron when Aaron says he raped Sister Benz, but he chooses to disbelieve Aaron when Aaron says he didn't murder Sister Benz. No explanation is offered.

Not only does Steve accept the explicit denials of Johnny and  Aaron as compelling proof of Garrett's guilt, Steve dismisses the confession of Leoncio Perez Rueda to the very murder that Johnny and Aaron deny committing. Steve dismisses Rueda's confession even though Rueda's DNA ties him (Rueda) to the murder of Narnie Box Bryson, a murder close in space, time and detail to that of Sister Benz. The two murders were indeed so proximate and similar that the police initially insisted they had to be the work of the same man.

Steve dismisses Rueda's confession with a flick of an evidentiary wrist: "The Cuban confession story seems very unsupported and unbelievable to me."

I caution that confessions should be treated as simply another police statement in need of corroboration by other evidence. An unquestioning acceptance of confessions (or dismissal of denials, as in this case) leads to wrongful convictions. Recall the case of the Norfolk Four, where four people in rapid succession confessed to a rape/murder and implicated three others in the process, though DNA proved none of them were guilty.

As Sherlock Holmes so wisely said while misquoting the Bible: "Data, data, data. I cannot make bricks without clay."

The Skeptical Juror Scoops the NY Times

Way back on 16 May, I suggested that Rick Perry hopes to be president some day. It wasn't a particularly insightful prediction, but unless I predict the obvious, I am too frequently wrong.

Now the New York Times is jumping on the bandwagon that I already jumped on seven months ago. The Grey Lady just published "Re-elected Texas Governor Sounding Like a Candidate."

Mr. Perry’s decision to keep up his attacks on the Obama administration, right after a grueling re-election campaign and with a book tour to give him a national platform, has fueled speculation that he is testing the waters for a presidential run in 2012.

Those whispers grew louder in Texas last weekend when he declined to commit to serving out his four-year term.

But the governor insisted his only goal was to spur “a national conversation” over whether the federal government has become too powerful, too expensive and too intrusive in people’s lives.

Wow! Not only did The New York Times build a persuasive case that Rick Perry intends to run for President, Rick Perry denied it!  It must be true. We need to get some of those crack NYT investigative journalists looking into the case of Frances Elaine Newton or Johnny Frank Garrett or David Wayne Spence or many of the other Firstname Middlename Lastname people executed in Texas under the careful eye of past President George W. Bush or future President James Richard "Rick" Perry.

(Sorry. That last sentence got away from me a little bit.)

For those of you concerned that we might be executing too many innocent people in this country, here's the takeaway segment from the NYT in-depth analysis.

The tendency of people to “vote with their feet” is the surest guarantee of personal liberty, Mr. Perry concludes. States should be laboratories of government policy, he says.

“If you don’t support the death penalty and citizens packing a pistol, don’t come to Texas,” he writes. “If you don’t like medicinal marijuana and gay marriage, don’t move to California.”

"If you don't support the death penalty ... don't come to Texas." I don't think it's going to fit on a campaign button.

What's Up With Johnny Frank Garrett?

This blog has experienced an unusually large amount of traffic lately, mostly due to people clicking on the link I placed in the Wikipedia article on Johnny Frank Garrett. The link has been there a while. The interest is more recent.

While certainly pleased by the increased traffic, I'm puzzled by the sudden interest in Johnny Frank. For a while, I assumed it was because few people could resist checking out any post that had "and Bubbles the Clairvoyant" in the title. I've since dismissed that brilliant title as the cause of the increased traffic.

It now occurs to me that people are becoming interested in Johnny Frank's case because of the hearing Judge Fine will hold regarding the constitutionality of the Texas death penalty. He is likely to declare the Texas death penalty law unconstitutional if the defense can satisfy him that Texas has already executed innocent people. I couple that with the fact that, so far, I have scored Johnny Frank Garret as more likely to be innocent than any other person I have scored. As a reminder, I present the complete list below.

Johnny Frank Garrett, 91

David Wayne Spence, 90

Robert Nelson Drew, 84

Carlos DeLuna, 83

Davis Losada, 75

Odell Barnes, 69 
Gary "Despicable" Graham, 58

Delma Banks, 57
Lamont Reese, 53

Claude "The Despicable" Jones, 52

Ruben Cantu, 43

Reginald Blanton, 41

Leonel Torres Herrera, 11

Charles Anthony Boyd, 1 

By my decimal accounting, that is 8 innocent people executed by Texas. I still have a long way to go in my search for the 54, but 8 innocent people executed is already a disturbing number. But back to the mystery of the Johnny Frank Garrett traffic.

I decided that, if my Judge Fine hypothesis is correct, most of the traffic will be coming from Texas. I check and find that Texans are responsible for 11% of the page views. While that's a disproportionately large percentage from Texas, the fine folks from Illinois are responsible for a whopping 17%. That means more than a quarter of the traffic on this blog has been originating recently from either Texas or Illinois. While that is interesting, it doesn't confirm or disprove my Judge Fine hypothesis.

I then checked the traffic for the other people I have scored most likely to be factually innocent but dead at the end of a Texas needle. While there was some modest foot traffic for Robert Nelson Drew, there was none to speak of for David Wayne Spence or Carlos DeLuna.

When I couple all that with the fact that Judge Fine's hearing is still 3 months away, I conclude that my Judge Fine hypothesis is unlikely to be correct.

So, if it's not the clever title, and it's not Judge Fine's hearing, what is it that is causing the recent Johnny Frank Garrett traffic on this site. Perhaps some of those readers who have been visiting to read about Garrett will post a comment so that this tangled mystery may be solved.

Texas Death Penalty on Trial: Judge Fine Sets a Date

I wrote of Judge Kevin Fine first in Now For Another Cosmic Moment after he granted a hearing to the defense team for John Green. The defense team had argued their client should not be subject to the death penalty because the death penalty was unconstitutional. Judge Fine, admitting to his concern that Texas had probably already executed innocent people, scheduled a hearing. Texas appealed and lost.

Now I learn from My Fox Houston that Judge Kevin Fine has scheduled the hearing for November 8 and expects that the hearing might last two weeks. The article was only four paragraphs long. I like the last one best.

Prosecutors say they are not opposed to a hearing [that] looks at the constitutionality of the death penalty law, but object to any hearing that would look at whether Texas has executed an innocent person.

The prosecutors were previously opposed to looking into the constitutionality of the death penalty, but apparently changed their opinion after the appellate court ruled against them. And I will bet dollars to doughnut holes that the prosecutors deeply and sincerely object to any hearing that would consider whether Texas has executed an innocent person.

Particularly so if that person is Cameron Todd Willingham or Shaka Sankofa (both of whom I have yet to write about), or Johnny Frank Garrett, or David Wayne Spence, or Robert Nelson Drew, or Carlos DeLuna, or Odell Barnes, or a long list of others I intend to document in this blog.

Certainly had Tim Cole not died on death row before Texas could execute him, certainly had he not succumbed of asthma before Texas could plunge lethal chemicals into his arm, certainly then the prosecution would object to discussing his case as well.

The Last Words of Johnny Frank Garrett

Way, way, way back on April 16, I posted Actual Innocence: Johnny Frank Garrett and Bubbles the Clairvoyant. That post has turned into the most frequently hit post of this blog. Perhaps it's difficult to resist any story having a cameo appearance by Bubbles the Clairvoyant. Alternatively, the interest may have been peaked by Johnny Frank's position at the top of my slowly growing list of those I have scored as possibly innocent while in Search of the 54. I repeat that list here, now adding The Surprising Case of The Despicable Claude Jones and The Troublesome Case of Lamont Reese.

Johnny Frank Garrett, 91

David Wayne Spence, 90

Robert Nelson Drew, 84

Carlos DeLuna, 83

Odell Barnes, 69

Lamont Reese, 53

Claude "The Despicable" Jones, 52

Ruben Cantu, 43

Leonel Torres Herrera, 11

Melvin Wayne White, 0

Reader Michael H. Fox of The Japan Innocence and Death Penalty Research Center has commented on that post and has questioned one aspect of the story as told. I present his comment below, in its entirety.

I have just seen the documentary for the second time. It is excellent, but I wonder if the director has sensationalized/created quotes that are not factual. One of the film's underlying premises is that the executed boy cast a curse on his antagonists and gave a last statement saying that "all of them could kiss my everlovin' ass." But the book "Texas Death Row," available on Amazon, which details the crimes, personal data, last meals and final statements of everyone executed since 1977, shows no last words or statement for Johnny. If the director or anyone else would like to correct what I perceive as fictive fluff, I will stand corrected. Still I recommend the DVD.

Michael H. Fox is correct in that Texas does not list any final words for Johnny Frank Garrett. You can see that by examining the web site on which Texas presents the last words of those they have executed since they were allowed to start once again in 1976. Johnny Frank is number 44 on that list, placing him near the bottom, since the most recently executed are near the top. As you can see, they have no last words recorded for him.

That list, however, is based on what the person to be executed said while in the death chamber after being given an opportunity to make a last statement. A fair number of individuals executed prior to May of 1997 have no last words recorded, while almost all those executed after May of 1997 have last words recorded. I suspect the missing last words for some of the early cases had more to do with procedural or recording issues rather than a reluctance to speak on the part of the convicts. With respect to Johnny Frank, I have no  way of knowing whether he spoke or chose to remain mute.

My sense of the documentary was that they used words from Garrett's last interview as his final statement. They did, however, portray the words as if spoken from the death chamber. Now I have to wonder if the producers had some insight into what Johnny Frank did say while in the death chamber, and Texas declined not to record it because he said "ass," or for some other equally valid reason. While I'm unwilling to accuse the producers of "fictive fluff", I can't dispute Fox's suggestion they are guilty of such offense.

I'll add that being found guilty of "fictive fluff" is not good when you are trying to convince people you are being truthful with them. Personally, I'm contrite to the extent I have contributed to perpetuation of possible fictive fluff. I've included the YouTube trailer for the DVD video below. You can hear for yourself at the beginning of the trailer how they present his final statement.

I thank Michael H. Fox for his comment, and I credit him for his observation, his skepticism, and his use of the phase "fictive fluff." I suspect also that he could amaze us with his knowledge of the Japanese judicial system. I have read only a small amount about it, but what I have read caused me cultural surprise, shock being too strong a word.

I close with a note to him. I will be pleased to link to a good summary or to directly post text of your choosing if you care to inform readers of this blog about the Japanese judicial and capital punishment system.

News From Hank Skinner, Including Who Might Have Been Innocent

Hank Skinner has published his latest edition of Hell Hole News. In it he describes the events of his day of execution. Not many people can write of that after the fact.

He thanks by name many (he hopes all) of those who have tried to help him. I am mentioned somewhere near the middle of that impressively long list, as are The Skeptical Spouse and The Skeptical Niece.

Of greater interest to me ...

Actual Innocence: Johnny Frank Garrett and Bubbles the Clairvoyant

The fine folks of Amarillo wanted justice, and wanted it toot-sweet. The Amarillo police were having trouble finding the low-life individual who raped and killed 76-year-old Sister Tadea Benz on Halloween night, 1981. The authorities had just released Fernando Flores, and that was embarrassing.